Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses a technical rule regarding the requirement to shatter the earthenware vessel in which the meat from the sacrifice was cooked. Is it based on the absorption and retention of the material, or a divine decree applying to any earthenware vessel in which sacrificial meat is cooked, regardless of absorption? The difference would be a case where the meat was cooked while suspended in a clay oven in such a manner that nothing dripped to be absorbed in the walls. Would there still be an obligation to shatter the oven since it was cooked in an earthenware vessel and fits the literal description of the verse (Vayikra 6:21)?

The Pelesi (Y.D. 103:6) raises an interesting question. There is a tradition that in the Temple, shards of earthenware vessels were miraculously absorbed in their place (Zevachim 96a). If so, there would be a way to answer this question by taking the broken shards of one oven used in such a way and waiting to see if the ground would absorb them like the other broken shards.

The Pelesi finds it difficult to suggest that our Gemara was posing an abstract question that occurred only after the destruction of the Temple, because such a question is irrelevant if the Temple was not in existence. He does consider that it is possible they also were trying to find proof or disproof of the idea that absorption can happen from the air or steam without directly dripping on the walls, which could have relevance beyond the Temple.

I wonder about the Pelesi’s question- could the Beis HaMikdash process truly have dictated the halacha? We have seen in the famous dispute of the Oven of Achnai (Bava Metzia 59b), “Torah is not in heaven.” When Rabbi Eliezer brought signs and wonders to prove his position, and even a heavenly voice, God Himself conceded to the Sanhedrin’s vote, stating “My sons have won the argument.”. In simple terms, ideas in the Torah may be expressed differently, and the practice is dictated by the majority rule of the Sanhedrin, as per the judgment of each generation. So that means, at best, the shards would be absorbed or not absorbed in accordance with the prevailing sentiment and logic of the local halachic authority or determination. Regardless, it would be subject to change based on whatever considerations were behind the dispute, and how a Sanhedrin would actually vote. After all, could the swallowing of the shards by the earth be a better sign than the water flowing backwards? And still the halacha was according to the Sanhedrin, and not Rabbi Eliezer!

In defense of the Pelesi, the Gemara (Yoma 75a) says: in the wilderness, the manna was used to settle various domestic disputes. Since each household could only get a portion of manna based on a head count, the proper portion would end up at the home of the deserving party. For example, if there was a dispute over to which household a slave belonged, the household with the extra portion of manna was the winner of the dispute. Here we see that heavenly signs can resolve certain halachic disputes. How do we resolve the contradiction to the Oven of Achnai? We can draw a distinction between using signs to determine facts as opposed to opinions. For example, a question of fact might be: “Is this person posing as a beggar really destitute or is he a fraud?” An opinion is: if you have to choose between two beggars and determine who is more worthy. It is not merely a fact determination such as checking their bank accounts, but rather a judgment call about qualities and traits of character, which might vary in importance from person to person.

The Pelesi may argue that whether the walls of the oven absorb material without contact is a question of facts and physics, and therefore can be determined by miraculous signs. Such an explanation would only work if we understand the question in the Gemara as one of facts about absorption. If we understand the Gemara’s question as more of a judgment—whether we follow the literal words of the verse “cooked in” and shatter the vessel even if there was no absorption—then since it is a judgment and matter of interpretation of a verse, the miraculous sign has no authority. “Torah is not in Heaven,” and the Pelesi’s question does not begin.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Free resource for couples/families:

The Chosson and Kallah Shmooze You Wish You Had But Never Got

Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective  Click here

If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.

Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com